So an artist I am not, even in my most inspired spreadsheet moment.

But we do have several artists in our church, and leading them requires a different approach. Managing creative people is different than managing artists. Artists think differently, not just about what to create but also how to create.

My worship pastor is an artist. It’s part of what enables him to lead a group of diverse people to worship together. He also understands artists; he gets their vibe. (Vibe is his favorite word—if a space is “vibey,” then that’s a good thing. I’m still learning, I guess.). Watching my worship pastor lead a group of artists is a work of art in itself.

Placing this leadership style within a taxonomy would almost butcher what it is. So rather than attempt to define it, I’ll describe what I see in my worship pastor’s leadership style.

The best analogy I can use is art itself. Leading a group of artists is like having everyone paint the same work on one canvas, all together and at the same time. Each artist has a unique perspective, style, tone, and pace (and inevitably, they will all want their own type of brush). The one leading the artists, however, is responsible for making sure everyone is painting the same work on one canvas, rather than a bunch of individual works on that canvas.

When the work is finished (is art ever finished?), it’s never what the leader would have done as a lone artist. It always looks different, but the leader’s responsibility is to make sure what was painted is cohesive.

The leader of the artists does not mesh all the individual works into one bland blob. The leader of the artist ensures that each artist’s unique contribution is seen within the whole. The leader of the artists figures out ways to manage those who paint a lot with big, bold brushes with those who paint small with tiny brushes. The leader of the artists knows how to gently massage the person painting out of color scheme back into the group. The leader of the artists knows how to incorporate new artists with those who have been painting a long time. The leader of the artists knows how to calm tempers when one artist paints over another artist’s work.

Here’s the catch: the leader of the artist has to be willing to set aside and sacrifice his or her own work to lead the work of others. It’s how an artist becomes a servant-leader.

I don’t know that I’ll ever be able to lead like my worship pastor, but it is sure fun to watch the art of leadership unfold.

Too often these goals involve what individual leaders can do on their own. By the nature of their roles, however, leaders have people around them – teams, subordinates and followers – who are necessary components of success.

Allow me to challenge you to make resolutions this year with followers in mind. Here are five areas to consider in making specific leadership resolutions this year that benefit your followers.

Serve first. Everyone in an organization, from the top to the bottom serves the mission. As a leader you cannot serve the mission without also serving others. The best leaders are passionate about a mission, and they are willing to serve others who join them on that mission.

These leaders realize organizational goals and individual goals cannot be attained with an attitude of “Me first.” Leaders who show the way by serving others (as opposed to self-serving) help create a culture of sacrifice to a mission. Resolve this year to serve the mission by serving others.

Simplify work. Many people look for ways to simplify their lives this time of year. But the mantra to simplify lasts about a month before the complexities of life sneak in by Groundhog Day. Then an endless string of complex days continue until the following year’s resolution. One of the best gifts a leader can give followers is simplicity. Complexity may dominate your followers’ lives in every way, but you can grant them simplicity in the one area in which you have control. Managers who simplify work for their subordinates often create more work for themselves. Resolve this year to simplify for your followers, even if it means more complexity for you.

Release problems. Some problems are unsolvable. This creates a dilemma for leaders who have an innate desire to fix everything. Idealistic leaders will often present good solutions to the wrong problems.

Sometimes the “best” solution will not work. In certain cases, followers may never grasp the best solution. Let it go. Leaders serve people, not ideals. Resolve this year to release your followers from the burden of idealistic solutions to unsolvable problems.

Yield preferences. Most followers have a keen radar for the personal preferences of a leader, especially when these preferences are spun as vision. Leaders have positional authority over followers, and those in charge have more opportunities to voice opinions and vocalize what they like.

The best leaders find ways to create a collective vision with input from a variety of followers. They do not champion their preferences as the vision for all. Resolve this year to yield your personal preferences and build a collective vision from a variety of followers.

Recognize pride. Humility is the most difficult leadership trait to see in ourselves. The opposite of humility, pride is the most destructive leadership predisposition. Great leaders never stop fighting the battle to recognize pride and remain humble. It’s the quintessential leadership struggle. We stand on a sliding scale somewhere between healthy humility and unhealthy pride.

Even at our best, determining where we are on this scale is tough. We rarely recognize our pride until it’s too late. Followers often see it long before leaders become self-aware of arrogance. Great leaders appoint accountability partners at all levels of the organization to call attention to potential problems originated in pride. Resolve this year to put measures in place to recognize prideful tendencies and give key followers permission to call out problems associated with your pride.

Leadership is a gift from followers. Graciously accept this gift by resolving to serve followers by putting them first. Make 2012 the year of your followers.

[This post was originally published at Church Executive.]

The article (which reports on this book) defines these megapolitan areas as “having at least one metropolitan area of 2 million people by 2040 that’s connected — via commuting patterns — to at least one other metro area of more than 250,000 people. A megapolitan cluster has several megapolitan areas that are connected by commuting, trucking or commuter airline and share terrain, climate, culture, economic base and political culture.”

Here are a few of the presuppositions of these future mammoth communities:

• They will encompass major cities and counties, sharing a common culture, geographical features, transportation networks, and water supplies.
• Economic and population growth will continue to occur unevenly (in favor of urban areas), which means more collaborative and regional planning across communities in the future.
• Globalization will force U.S. regions to merge in order to stay competitive.
• Urbanization will continue to accelerate.
• Larger communities will create more jobs simply because of scale.

How this geographic and sociological change will affect the church is pure speculation. But it’s fun to speculate. I could see regional mega-churches benefiting from this shift, as well as regional multi-site churches. However, the inevitable regionalism of this shift may also create a localized neighborhood effect, in which people within a larger region desire to be identified with a specific and unique part of their community. As such, smaller neighborhood churches may also be positioned well. I’m curious about your thoughts. How else might this change—if it comes as predicted—affect the church? How can the church begin to respond?

If followers have power and influence, then why might they fall prey to bad leaders? How can the leader-follower relationship break down? What makes followers susceptible to toxic leadership? It is followers who are more to blame than leaders. Allow me to share three ways this breakdown occurs.

Safety. In most situations, unfollowing a leader is almost as simple as the aptly named Twitter button. Most people are not locked into a leader. You can leave a church. You can transition out of a job. You can transfer schools. People can vote out politicians and strike against companies.  Most followers in our culture have the freedom to walk away. But with every increase in freedom comes a corresponding decrease in safety. If you walk away from your job, then the paycheck is no longer guaranteed. If you vote out a politician, then you risk voting in one who is worse. In short, followers stick with bad leaders because they are not willing to risk safety in order to be free.

Belonging. Ditching a bad leader may mean leaving an important community. For instance, many followers remain loyal to a professional sports team despite an unscrupulous owner or ineffective coach. Loyalty is a powerful force within a community. Belonging in a human community will often supersede leaving a group leader. It’s why some churchgoers tolerate a fruitless pastor.  It’s why cult followers do not denounce the cult after the leader falters catastrophically. Unfollowing a toxic leader is often more painful (and less important) than the sense of belonging that comes from the community over which the leader presides.

Comfort. Challenging bad leaders is uncomfortable (at best) and deadly (at worst), but many followers forget they have the power to challenge leaders. In fact, dual accountability is one of the keys to a successful leader-follower relationship. In order to challenge leaders, however, followers must let go of comfortable silence. If you are the only one to speak out, and no one joins you, then you’re left alone in a vulnerable and uncomfortable position. Many followers are not willing to risk comfort to challenge bad leaders.

A healthy leader-follower relationship is less about an exaggerated leader romance and more about dual accountability. Accountability is what prevents leaders from becoming dictators and tyrants. Followers need leaders to help guide them to better places. Leaders need followers in order to fulfill their purpose. The proper glue sticking followers with leaders is accountability, not safety, belonging, and comfort.

[This post was originally published at Church Executive.]

Brookings recently released a fascinating study on the changing landscape of immigration over the past ten years. Compared to previous decades, several changes are occurring in the immigrant population.

• They are spreading out into smaller metro areas.
• They are moving to suburbs over cities.
• They are more likely to be U.S. citizens.
• They are more educated.

Just look at where the immigrant population doubled in the last ten years—not in Miami or Houston, but rather in Scranton and Knoxville. These metro areas are not typically considered hubs of immigration.

Take a look at what has happened in the 100 largest metro areas over the past ten years. Some of the highest percent increases are in unlikely areas.

In my own community—a small town in Western Kentucky—over one-quarter of the population are minorities, while only ten years ago minorities accounted for less than 12 percent of the population. What was once a phenomenon in New York and Los Angeles is becoming normative in most communities across the United States.

The next generation will experience less homogeneity and more heterogeneity. Understand this shift. Learn about new groups of people moving into your community. And lead your church to love them.